36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191 ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines - Preamble (Discussion of Comments and Changes)

224 Transient Lodging Guest Rooms

The minimum number of guest rooms required to be accessible in transient lodging facilities is covered in section 224. Access is addressed for people with disabilities, including those with mobility impairments (224.2) and people who are deaf or hard of hearing (224.4). In addition to rooms, there is a provision which addresses the number of beds required to be accessible in facilities such as homeless shelters, where a room may have a large number of beds. (224.3). Revisions of this section include:

• removal of the exception for certain bed-and-breakfast facilities (224.1), which are now exempted through the definition of "transient lodging" provided in section 106
• clarification of a provision covering doors and doorways in inaccessible transient lodging guest rooms (224.1.2)
• revised scoping for accessible beds (224.3)
• reduced scoping for guest rooms with accessible communication features (224.4)
• modified dispersion requirements (224.5)

The definition of "transient lodging" in section 106.5 has been revised to exclude, in part, "private buildings or facilities that contain not more than five rooms for rent or hire and that are actually occupied by the proprietor as the residence of such proprietor." As a result, an exception for such facilities in 225.1 has been removed.

Comment. In transient lodging facilities, doors and doorways in inaccessible guest rooms are required to be at least 32 inches wide (224.1.2). This specification stems from the original ADAAG and is intended to afford some access to inaccessible guest rooms for visitation purposes. Clarification was requested on which types of doors this is intended to cover and whether it applies to shower doors.

Response. In the final rule, clarification has been added that the 32 inch minimum clearance applies to those doors "providing user passage" into and within guest rooms not required to be accessible. In addition, the Board has added an exception that exempts shower and sauna doors in inaccessible guest rooms from this requirement. Corresponding changes have been made to a similar provision in the general scoping section for doors (206.5.3).

Comment. A hotel and motel trade group opposed any increase in the number of guest rooms required to be accessible and submitted a study it commissioned on the usage of such rooms. According to this study, 80% of accessible guest rooms remain unused by people with disabilities. This trade group also submitted comments to the draft final guidelines that included a statistical study of the number of persons who use wheelchairs based on U.S. census data (1.03% of the population age 15 years and older). Based on this information, this commenter requested that the required number of accessible guest rooms be reduced to a level consistent with assessed usage rates and population estimates.

Response. The proposed rule was consistent with the recommendations of the ADAAG Review Advisory Committee and preserved, without increase, the number of accessible guest rooms (224.2). The number of accessible guest rooms is also consistent with the International Building Code. Accessible guest rooms include features such as grab bars and other elements that benefit not only people who use wheelchairs, but also people who use crutches, canes, and walkers. Data provided by the Disability Statistics Center at the University of California, San Francisco shows that the number of adults who use wheelchairs has been increasing at the rate of 6 percent per year from 1969 to 1999; and by 2010, it is projected that 2 percent of the adult population will use wheelchairs. In addition to people who use wheelchairs, 3 percent of adults used crutches, canes, walkers and other mobility devices in 1999; and the number is projected to increase to 4 percent by 2010. Thus, by 2010, up to 6 percent of the population may need accessible guest rooms.

Data submitted by the hotel and motel trade group showed that hotel stays are almost equally divided between business travel and non-business travel. Non-business travelers usually travel as members of a household or group for vacation, special events, or leisure. In 1999, 2.3 percent of households had an adult member who uses a wheelchair; and by 2010, it is projected that 4 percent of households will have an adult member who uses a wheelchair. In addition to households with an adult member who uses a wheelchair, 7 percent of households had an adult member who used canes, crutches, walkers or other mobility devices in 1999; and the number is projected to increase to 9 percent by 2010. Thus, by 2010, up to 13 percent of households will have adult members who may need accessible guest rooms.

The Board recognizes that all the people and households that may benefit from an accessible guest room may not specifically request an accessible room, and the scoping levels reflect this fact. The statistical study submitted by the hotel and motel trade group assumed independence in accessible room requests. In reality, accessible room requests are likely to be somewhat correlated, due to hotel preferences or group travel. For smaller hotels, a slight violation of the independence assumption could lead to a higher sellout rate, as these hotels have relatively fewer accessible rooms. The hotel and motel trade group also submitted data on actual accessible room reservation requests for select hotels that implied the current demand for accessible rooms is closer to 0.8 percent than 1 percent, as in their original study. However, this sample was likely not representative and the study did not take into account data showing that the population who needs accessible rooms is growing. Hotels constructed in the next few years will serve the population for decades to come. Because of the problems with the assumptions used in the statistical study and the failure to consider future needs, the Board concluded that a reduction in the number of accessible guest rooms is not warranted.

The hotel and motel trade group has pointed out that the Board has reduced the scoping for wheelchair spaces in assembly areas by 0.33 percent for assembly areas with 501 to 5,000 seats, and by 0.5 percent for assembly areas with more than 5,000 seats. However, the hotel and motel trade group has proposed a much greater reduction in the number of accessible rooms for all size hotels with more than 50 rooms. For example, they proposed that hotels with 100 rooms provide 40 percent fewer accessible rooms (3 accessible rooms, instead of the 5 accessible rooms currently required). There are important difference between large assembly areas such as sports stadiums which may have 50,000 to 70,000 seats, and hotels. Only 1 percent of hotels have more than 500 rooms. These hotels cater to meetings and conferences sponsored by groups who reserve large numbers of rooms. Disability groups and organizations may hold meetings and conferences at these hotels and need large numbers of accessible rooms. For all these reasons, the number of accessible guest rooms has not been changed in the final rule.

Comment. The proposed rule addressed access to beds according to a table based on the total number provided in a guest room. This table, as recommended by the ADAAG Review Advisory Committee, included bed counts well into the hundreds. The table followed a sliding scale that started with roughly a 4% requirement (1 per 25 beds provided in a room) which decreased to 3% (for over 500 beds) and then to 2% (for over 1,000 beds). Comments considered the upper levels covered by the table as ridiculously high and suggested a simpler and more realistic provision.

Response. The scoping table for beds has been removed in the final rule and replaced by a flat 5% requirement that applies where more than 25 beds are provided in a guest room. Technical requirements for guest rooms require at least one bed in a sleeping room to be accessible. This provision would govern in rooms with 25 or fewer beds.

The guidelines address rooms required to provide communication features accessible to persons who are deaf or hard of hearing, including visual notification of fire alarms, telephone calls, and door knocks or bells. Telephones in such rooms must have volume controls and nearby outlets for the installation of TTYs. The Board had proposed increasing the minimum number of such guest rooms to 50% of the total number of guest rooms provided. This contrasted significantly with the original ADAAG, which specified the minimum number according to a sliding scale. It required 1 in 25 rooms to comply up to a guestroom count of 100. Scoping successively decreased to 1 for every 50 rooms for the next 101 to 200 rooms and to 1 for every 100 rooms for the next 201 to 500 rooms. For facilities with 501 to 1,000 rooms, 2% of rooms were required to comply, and where the room count exceeded 1,000, the scoping dropped to 1% (ADAAG 9.1.3). The original ADAAG also required that all accessible guest rooms be equipped with communication features in addition to the number of rooms required to provide communication access only (ADAAG 9.2.2(8)).

The Board had proposed the increased scoping for guestrooms with accessible communication for several reasons. The communication features addressed in this requirement address life safety in providing visual notification of fire alarms for people who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Board also felt that the increased scoping would afford greater flexibility in the guest room assignment of people who are deaf or hard of hearing, especially in light of revisions to the technical requirements that effectively preclude the use of portable visual alarm devices. In addition, permanent installation of visual alarm appliances is considerably less expensive and easier to achieve as part of facility design and construction than as a retrofit.

Comment. The Board sought information on the new construction cost impact of the proposed increased scoping and also asked whether exceptions should be provided for altered facilities or additions (Question 14). The hotel and motel industry strongly opposed increasing scoping for rooms providing communication access to 50%, which it considered unsubstantiated and unsupported by the assessed need. The industry considers the original ADAAG specification, which is substantially lower than 50%, to be excessive in view of its assessments on the usage rate of such rooms by persons with disabilities. People who have photosensitive epilepsy also opposed the proposed increase because the potential for triggering seizures would be too great. On the other hand, many comments from persons who are deaf or hard of hearing voiced strong support for maintaining or further increasing the proposed 50% requirement. In the belief that some transient lodging facilities have adopted voluntary policies requiring permanently installed visual alarms in all or a majority of newly constructed guest rooms, the Board sought information on such cases (Question 15). Commenters responded that they were unaware of any such corporate policies.

Response. In the final rule, the Board has reduced the scoping for guest rooms with accessible communication features to the level specified by the original ADAAG. The Board has included some limited changes from the original ADAAG scoping for consistency with the International Building Code (IBC). The minimum number required to comply is based on the number of rooms provided: 2 - 25 (2), 26 - 50 (4), 51 - 75 (7), 76 - 100 (9), 101 - 150 (12), 151 - 200 (14), 201 - 300 (17), 301 - 400 (20), 401 - 500 (22), 501 - 1,000 (5% of total), 1,001 and over (50, plus 3 for each 100 over 1,000). These levels slightly differ from the original ADAAG at the higher levels (401 rooms and above). The numbers are consistent with the IBC except that the IBC scoping does not apply to facilities with less than 6 guest rooms.

Comment. The industry also objected to requiring alarm appliances to be permanently installed. One hotel chain commented that their deaf and hard of hearing guests preferred portable appliances because these can be used in any guest room. This point was contradicted by comments from deaf and hard of hearing commenters and advisory committee members who urged permanent installation.

Response. The Board has elected to reference the NFPA 72‒1999 National Fire Alarm Code and has included a requirement that appliances be permanently installed. The Board believes that the hospitality industry can best guarantee deaf and hard of hearing guests the same level of protection as hearing guest by providing them visual devices that are part of the same fire alarm system that alerts hearing guests. Fire alarm systems must pass rigorous installation standards and frequent inspections. To date, the Board is unaware of any portable equipment that satisfies the requirements of the referenced standard. Even if portable equipment satisfying this standard were available, there is still a key concern that their installation, when not supervised by a trained professional, would not guarantee proper location and visibility of the signal. The NFPA 72 includes criteria for the appropriate location of the visual alarm appliance within the guest room. Deaf and hard of hearing travelers have reported that hotel staff have installed portable alarms on the floor, under furniture, and in other locations that do not satisfy the requirements of the referenced standard.

Section 224.5 requires dispersion of accessible rooms among the various classes of rooms provided, including room type, bed count, and other amenities to a degree comparable to the choices provided other guests. When complete dispersion is not possible due to the number of rooms required to be accessible, dispersion is to be provided in the following order of priority: room type, bed count, and amenities.

The proposed rule required communication access in half of the accessible guestrooms in addition to the number required in section 224.4. The Board considered removing this requirement and stipulating that there be no overlap between the dispersion of accessible rooms and communication accessible rooms, as indicated in the draft of the final guidelines. The Board sought to prevent such overlap to maximize the availability of each room type and proposed that a similar change be made in the IBC. This change was not adopted into the IBC, in part due to consideration of persons using wheelchairs who may need accessible communication features. The IBC does not require or prohibit overlap between both types of rooms. In the final rule, the Board has revised the dispersion requirement to allow some overlap (10% maximum) between rooms and to ensure that at least one room provides both wheelchair access and communication access. Thus, no more than 10% of the accessible rooms can be used to satisfy the required number of rooms providing communication access. Communication access can be provided in a greater number of accessible rooms, but the amount in excess of 10% cannot count toward the number of rooms required to provide communication access.

Comment. Comments urged that dispersion should be based on bed count, instead of bed type. People with disabilities, especially those who traveled with attendants, felt that bed type or size was not as important as the number of beds.

Response. The criteria for dispersion is also modified. In the list of factors that define various classes of rooms, the Board has replaced "types of beds" with "number of beds."